Trumped

[mtangelsfan]

5 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

Why would it be random?

Because what if there are three that could be dismissed instead of two.  What if there really is only one that should be gotten rid of instead of two.  Two is just a number that Trump pulled out of his orange behind.

There is no substance, no real plan to say "this regulation could replace a, b, ......"  It is just lazy government.  Fairly similar to saying "we must cut 30% of government in every department".  

[Amazing Larry]

2 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Because what if there are three that could be dismissed instead of two.

I don't think this executive order limits the amount of regulations that could be eliminated, it only sets a minimum of 2 for every new one.

Also, I believe English Cop would have a field day with your post.

[Amazing Larry]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-most-support-trumps-temporary-refugee-ban/article/2613360

[mtangelsfan]

Just now, Lawrence said:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-most-support-trumps-temporary-refugee-ban/article/2613360

Meaningless.  

[Amazing Larry]

Ok

[Jay]

 

[Thomas]

9 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Meaningless.  

The left has done a really good job showing that this makes them very angry. They have done a much less admirable job explaining why everyone else should be too. And even if they had a coherent message it'd be lost in their confrontational appearance.

[mtangelsfan]

I agree, they are still failing. 

What I meant by meaningless is that a majority doesn't matter if what they want is unconstitutional.

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

I agree, they are still failing. 

What I meant by meaningless is that a majority doesn't matter if what they want is unconstitutional.

At this point in our country's history I believe Ronnie James Dio said it best, "The Mob Rules"

[arch stanton]

And if you were to ask the supporters of  the ban what it actually says or who it actually bans I bet the majority of them would have no idea

[Glen]

Just now, arch stanton said:

And if you were to ask the supporters of  the ban what it actually says or who it actually bans I bet the majority of them would have no idea

 

Repeal Obamacare as long as I can keep my ACA!

[Glen]

3 minutes ago, Thomas said:

At this point in our country's history I believe Ronnie James Dio said it best, "The Mob Rules"

None of us are as dumb as all of us.

[Jay]

3 minutes ago, Thomas said:

At this point in our country's history I believe Ronnie James Dio said it best, "The Mob Rules"

If by "The Mob Rules" you mean the Democrats lost the election, then I agree.

 

[Amazing Larry]

7 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I agree, they are still failing. 

What I meant by meaningless is that a majority doesn't matter if what they want is unconstitutional.

What is unconstitutional?

[Glen]

2 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

What is unconstitutional?

Glad you asked.  Take your pick.

https://mediamatters.org/video/2017/01/29/watch-aclu-s-anthony-romero-explain-why-trump-s-muslim-ban-unconstitutional-and-illegal/215165

 

As with anything Constitutional, it is subject to interpretation.

[Thomas]

6 minutes ago, Jay said:

If by "The Mob Rules" you mean the Democrats lost the election, then I agree.

Oh each political side has broken down into their own version of Lord of the Flies with each side trying to outdo the other in stupidity. Right now it's too close to call.

[red321]

31 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I agree, they are still failing. 

What I meant by meaningless is that a majority doesn't matter if what they want is unconstitutional.

The left doesn't have a lot of "weapons" at the moment. They are introducing legislation to overturn the ban, but we all know that is not going to go anywhere with the current congressional makeup. They've also held various leadership positions identify why they feel this order is unconstitutional and american. Democratic leadership has been spotty for sure, at this point I'm not sure they should vote for any cabinet nominee who supports the actions of the administration so far. Because many of them are cowards, I doubt you will see that happen.

I'm not sure what you would expect to see over night?

From a grassroots level they have targeted an upcoming congressional special election to replace the HHS nominee. The anger and passion we've seen the last few days continues and needs to be translated into 2018 and local politics. Interesting to note I've never seen my local group of friends talk about things like contacting their congressman...hell, I never have...and now I'm seeing lots of people talking about banging on Ed Royce's door. It would be interesting to see if an actual Democrat runs against him in 2018.

 

[mtangelsfan]

2 minutes ago, red321 said:

The left doesn't have a lot of "weapons" at the moment. They are introducing legislation to overturn the ban, but we all know that is not going to go anywhere with the current congressional makeup. They've also held various leadership positions identify why they feel this order is unconstitutional and american. Democratic leadership has been spotty for sure, at this point I'm not sure they should vote for any cabinet nominee who supports the actions of the administration so far. Because many of them are cowards, I doubt you will see that happen.

I'm not sure what you would expect to see over night?

From a grassroots level they have targeted an upcoming congressional special election to replace the HHS nominee. The anger and passion we've seen the last few days continues and needs to be translated into 2018 and local politics. Interesting to note I've never seen my local group of friends talk about things like contacting their congressman...hell, I never have...and now I'm seeing lots of people talking about banging on Ed Royce's door. It would be interesting to see if an actual Democrat runs against him in 2018.

 

I don't expect to see something overnight.  I do expect some of your best and brightest going on national tv and expressing, in a rational and passionate way why these policies are wrong and unconstitutional.   It is time to present a passionate, yet coherent alternative.  People shouting, screaming, blocking traffic and slowing down air travel is not going to get it done.

[gotbeer]

57 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Oh each political side has broken down into their own version of Lord of the Flies with each side trying to outdo the other in stupidity. Right now it's too close to call.

No.  It's easy to call.  Both sides are stupid.

[red321]

I'm not going to agree with you regarding the protests...I think protesting in a safe/non-violent/destructive way is appropriate (though I would agree blocking traffic re: freeways and such is inappropriate). I didn't see reports of folks slowing down air travel, might have missed it...I know Mango Mussolini tried to pin the Delta issue on protestors when it was a Delta computer glitch.

I do agree re: discussion on tv...though that is a tough road to hoe in this "fair and balanced" world. I saw a discussion last night on CNN, included Jeffrey Lord. My gawd he should be forced to listen to ABBA on a 24 hour loop...what a twat...he's got a new version of Guilianitis...every sentence starts with "Obama or Clinton". I'm not sure you could get him to give a straight answer to a question if you held his children at gunpoint. So, what happens if the news anchor cuts them off when they pull this shit...suddenly it's "biased media"...and this goes both ways. Hmm...I'm not sure I have much of a point

[Spirit]

9 minutes ago, red321 said:

I'm not going to agree with you regarding the protests...I think protesting in a safe/non-violent/destructive way is appropriate (though I would agree blocking traffic re: freeways and such is inappropriate). I didn't see reports of folks slowing down air travel, might have missed it...

 

Well, here you go:  http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lax-protest-20170129-story.html

 

 

[Adam]

34 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I don't expect to see something overnight.  I do expect some of your best and brightest going on national tv and expressing, in a rational and passionate way why these policies are wrong and unconstitutional.   It is time to present a passionate, yet coherent alternative.  People shouting, screaming, blocking traffic and slowing down air travel is not going to get it done.

One of the challenges of doing this is that at the end of the day, how many minds can they change? The way our system is set up when you're a democrat, by definitiion you adopt a bunch of positions. Same thing for the republicans. So, some very bright strong leader from the left could do all that but if their party affiliation continues to support polarizing things like abortion, entitlements, heavy regulation, we're not going to see much of a shift from the citizenry. 

 

It would be better for the country if a strong republican contingent did as you say. 

haha like that would happen

[Amazing Larry]

32 minutes ago, red321 said:

I know Mango Mussolini tried to pin the Delta issue on protestors when it was a Delta computer glitch.

Red loves him some alternative facts.

*protesters

[red321]

12 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

Well, here you go:  http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lax-protest-20170129-story.html

 

 

yeah, that article doesn't appear to back up the assertion air travel was slowed down because of protestors. People missed flights, traffic was blocked. No mention of planes being delayed. Longer article and I skimmed.

[red321]

my statement was incorrect...but you should copy both tweets next time